By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Answer: Emphatic YES
Part one:
US Sales of Hybrids Stay Strong in June 2006, Up 20% from 2005 July 03, 2006
Hybrids in the US had their second-strongest sales month of the year and third-strongest month ever, posting a total of 23,048 units, an increase of 20% from June 2005. May 2006 remains the peak month, with 23,554 units sold.
Part two:
Toyota Division
Toyota Division passenger cars recorded all-time best-ever monthly sales of 130,109, up 24.9 percent over the same period last year. Passenger car sales were led by the Corolla, which posted July sales of 41,800 and an increase of 42.3 percent over last July. The Camry Hybrid, which went on sale in late April, reported sales of 5,023 units in July. Total Camry enjoyed combined July sales of 41,892 units, up 1.3 percent. The all-new Yaris subcompact, which went on sale in March, posted sales totaling 10,137 units for the month. The Prius gas-electric hybrid mid-size sedan posted July sales of 11,114, an increase of 19.3 percent.
So, YES, hybrids are up. Toyota went over the 100,000 unit mark in July also:
TMS calendar-year-to-date hybrid sales broke the 100,000-unit sales milestone, reporting 105,808 hybrid units. In July, hybrids sales totaled 20,298 units.
So TOYOTA and LEXUS ALONE sold 20,298 hybrids in July.
I think the answer is clear about how hybrids are doing.
As demand continues to outpace supply for Honda's small car lineup, the Honda Civic sold 28,607 units for a 6.2 percent increase, and the all-new Fit sold 3,135 units. Accord sales increased 9.5 percent to 38,043, and Honda also sold a total of 3,268 hybrid vehicles helped by record July sales for the Civic Hybrid of 2,673 units.
So Toyota has 5 months to sell 150k more hybrids to make their 250k goal for 2006. We shall see. You left out Ford & Honda in your glowing hybrid sales report. Kind of like the pro hybrid media reports I am reading.
Prius sales for July were 19.3% ahead of last year. Calendar year to date 2006 Hybrid sales were 105,808 and July 2006 Hybrid sales were 20,298.
Here is the link:
http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2006/08/01-1-sales.html
One would expect Prius sales to suffer a bit because of the availability of the Camry Hybrid but apparently Toyota Hybrids are still selling quite well with over 20k of them sold in July.
All very clever double talk. Prius sales through July of 2006 are off 5.4% over July of 2005. You have to read the fine print to get the truth. If it were not for sales of the Corolla, Scion & RAV4 Toyota would not be in positive territory.
See Chart
Not at all. I just stated facts. It is up to you to interpret them in any way that you see fit.
Judging by the since closed (read only)thread "I Hate SUV's Why Don't You"?, this type of documentation was used to bolster the assertions the SUV's were growing exponentially and was approaching the "Mongol's at the Gates" type of mentality. The obvious difference would be the notion hybrids ARE saving civilization FROM the Mongols.
So the Prius has sold a "big 5%" less than as of 2005 - big whoop. We knew the Camry would make a small dent in Prius sales, and it has. That does not mean "hybrid sales are lower" at all.
OVERALL HYBRID SALES were 20,298 in July. Toyota still on track to sell 181,385 hybrids this year, which will surpass 2005.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
yes, military vehicles get driven harder than civilian vehicles, but they also have constant service done on them, unlike civilian vehicles
and is the H1 the exact vehicle that the military uses?
I wonder if all the costs to develop the Hummer for the military were baked in to this analysis.
I've always been a fan of buy local products, and the Hummer (or any GM product) is more "local" than any vehicle made overseas.
The Dust to Dust analysis is worthwhile, but the devil is in the details. Maybe we should start a separate thread on this very topic (I've tried before). This issue is far bigger than diesels versus hybrids, but this isn't a bad place for that discussion.
A common supposition, but not based in fact.
As pointed out here several times there are few if any toxic materials in a NiMH battery. If one landed in a dump it would have the same 'footprint' of say, a washing machine.
However as you know Toyota pays a bounty of $200 to take back any NiMH battery. Whether these are recycled into new parts or taken in for laboratory testing or just disassembled is purely guesswork.
In 6+ years there are very few reported cases of any battery failures ( the Insight mainly which Honda took care of ). This issue of recyclability is one of possibly 'falling off the edge of the world'. Why? The original batteries are still in the original vehicles. Very few if any have had to be replaced. This is a lot better than the typical lead-acid battery.
Toyota's position
Ain't it great? Just because you have problems with it doesn't make 14 years NOT the standard it is built to. Incidently it is NOT what my military friend said. The 14 years it what I got off the net in a variety of sources. Actually one of the real headaches was the app 200-250k of high tech communications equipment racked on each of the 52 vehicles under his responsibility.
If what you mean by constant service =scheduled maintenance then I would submit that if the average owner IGNORES scheduled maintenance then it should really present no real surprises eh? Actually when you are on a military mission, the last thing one wants when ones life depends on equipment is unscheduled surprises.
I also heard or read the Greater LA Metro areas estimates of app 25% for the reasons for daily congestion is unscheduled break downs due to lack of (scheduled) maintenance.
I am not sure who started the comparison between NiMH and lead acid batteries. First off the Toyota hybrids have both. Does that mean they are double trouble? You are comparing a $50 one year expendable battery with a $5000 battery that is said to last the life of the car.
I’ll assume that the hybrid is lower in emissions I’ll take the slightly higher polluter that has a significantly longer life span and can be disposed of (eventually) cleaner.
There is no proof to the first highlighted comment since hybrids are relatively new.
The 2nd highlighted comment is just not true. ( nor yours
The lead acid battery point I was trying to make was a niggling detail because the 12v battery on a Prius ( the largest volume hybrid ) is slightly smaller than say on a Camry for example.
Gasoline alternatives
The language you quote at the start of your post is not talking cost. It is talking which is cleaner to dispose of.
Recycling a steel and aluminum engine uses less energy and has less environmental issues than recycling an NiMH battery.
And if not for the F-150, Explorer, Focus, Escape, Ranger, Five Hundred etc etc etc Ford would actually BE in positive territory. One can say the same about GM and DaimlerChrysler. I'm not really sure why all of this is important to this discussion but it sure gives me a reason to laugh.
It appears that people are finally starting to realize that $3 (or higher) gasoline is here to stay and they are altering their buying habits to reflect the reality of the current situation. Rebates and promotions can only put a finger in the dike, but they don't fix the problem.
In my opinion, Ford is making a big mistake by moving away from the Hybrids and concentrating on the flex fuel stuff. Yes, it gives them a way to play games with C.A.F.E. but unless they drastically improve the fuel economy of their fleet their sales will continue to suffer.
All manufacturers are seeing that the sales of their larger/poor fuel economy vehicles are suffering (Toyota included). If nothing else, lack of sales will be enough to get the manufacturers on board to start building a variety of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. I personally think that Toyota should rethink their new Tundra, and release it with efficient, clean burning diesel or hybrid power plants only, and forget about the big V8. It's just too thirsty and impractical with the big V8 to sell well in the era of $3 gasoline.
The only reason that Honda and Toyota are doing well now is that their product strengths are in the areas that are in demand now. Smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, primarily cars. The domestic manufacturers have been treating fuel economy as an afterthought, and now that oversight is coming back to haunt them in a big way.
I googled extensively and could not find anything that corroborated that statement. It does look like that NiMH batteries are not without their recycling issues, but the Nickel that can be reclaimed from a NiMH battery is almost enough to pay for the process, making a good economic case for recycling of these batteries when they do finally reach that point.
I did find this excellent article on Hybrid battery recycling:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KWH/is_1_43/ai_n8707486
In truth I think the real goal is more along the lines of "new every two". But with rising fuel prices, new and used car prices, higher depreciation in used cars and higher cost of borrowed money, etc,. it might be time for a change in thinking.
What % of (non-military) Hummers have made 300,000 miles?
I am guessing zero.
Hell, the odomoter will break before 2 clicks
In past posts, I also have mentioned
1. the yearly average salvage age 7 to 7/5 %
2. the average yearly mileage of 12-15k
3. the average age of the passenger vehicle fleet 8-8.5 years.
So given some of these figures, we are talking about app 96,000 to 128,000 miles.
I also mentioned that if we are really serious about this so called energy "crisis", that lower salvage rates and longer passenger vehicle ages (with the resultant greater miles) are a logical adjunct to bringing down our macro energy use.
That might be a safe assumption for all auto makers. I know many rust away long before they reach 200k miles. There is a Mercedes Sprinter Diesel in Europe with over 900k miles. That does not make it the average. There are far more Sprinter diesels sold World wide than Hummers. And he rated the Sprinter at 381k miles. No one is disputing that. The only Hummer with any sales to speak of is the Hummer2. And that was rated under 200k miles.
The real story is how long does it take to get to a given mileage. Our 17 year old LS400 has a little over 85k miles. I cannot justify buying a replacement. It still runs and looks great. I personally do not think many 2006 model cars will still be running 17 years from now. Too much electronic crap to go bad. That is my major complaint with the hybrids. They have about 38% more crap to fail than the average gasser built today. We will know in a few more years when the Prius Classics get some age on them. I think the Insights are already showing their age. They have been around only 7 years.
tough day
I do worry about all the software in today's cars. It's only a matter of time until the car companies say something along the lines of, "We just don't support Windows 95, anymore"
Everything will be running fine, but the computer won't be supported
ugh
I think the car companies are better at a lot of stuff today
My 2000 Sebring - basically a crappy American car - looks as good as the day I bought it, and it gets driven every day (but it does get garaged, and it is in the SF Bay Area). OK, my carpet is worn in the driver's area, but the leather is great, the plastic all looks great. Hard to imagine a car from 1980 looking this good.
My parents had Cadillacs in the 60s, and those paint jobs looked crappy after only a few years. Blame New England or blame GM? The materials science today is just so much better. No red cars looked good after 50,000 miles back then. Today you can have a good red paint job for years and years.
Progress.
Dismantling computers is profitable, but quite dirty and labor intensive. Most computer recycling is done in China where no one cares about the contamination. My understanding is that NiMH battery recycling contracts have already been offered to some of the same operations. Not a good sign.
Recycling a steel or aluminum engine is just a matter of stripping off valuable components and plopping the rest in a blast furnace.
Recycling NiMH batteries require more extensive breakdown.
I did not take it as such. I questioned this report myself. I have read many of the letters sent to CNW. Some answers I agreed with some not. What I find flawed is the fact that they can say any given car will go X amount of miles and consume X dollars per mile. Energy cost per mile for the Prius is stated as $3.249. Expected miles is 109,000. That comes out to $354,141. Who pays that? It cannot be the manufacturer. It is not the consumer. Is the study saying society ends up paying the difference? I don't know what all criteria was used. I don't believe it is a paid advertisement by GM. If it was the Scion Xb would not have come out on top. I can believe it could though.
This paragraph says it all. Domestic builders have lacked the foresight and have really ben caught with their pants down. If any of them fail, it is by their own stupidity.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116373
A real work truck getting 25 mpgs combined per gallon is pretty good. Toyota is spending billions launching the full size Tundra. I've not heard anything about it coming with a dual phase hybrid system.
Foresight, pants down and all that stuff.
But clearly another weak sisters, so called "JOBS BANK" (I really do not know the real code word) where the union crafted folks getting paid the full salary (75-150k?) per year and not working. Any analysis that would show this to be adaptive and productive would clearly be suspect.
The ultimate insult to injury might be to ask the real question, how many of those weak sisters' employees and management would buy those cars if they had to buy them without the "employee discounts", or in some cases given free. I think the question is not asked because the answers are forgone conclusions.
Daimler, BMW and GM were forced by Toyota and (to a lessor extent) Honda to come up with their hybrid system.
Some reports are suggesting the hybrid trucks may actually be better heavy duty vehicles than traditional ICE only.
As noted here several times before the HSD hybrid system may not the best for large vehicles. There will be a hybrid Tundra in the near future but how it will be done is a great guessing game now. This type of technical information is normally a very closely guarded secret until just before release.
I think a diesel Tundra may debut first but the hybrid has been announced and is likely to be close behind.
Can't Toyota marketers see the gold mine they have waiting there in that market?
They already have a proven vehicle in Japan !!
So not being privy to the real design parameters, (how long it is REALLY expected to last) let me just SWAG that 50,000 miles would be an EXTREME disappointment here in the USA with average mileage per year and age of the passenger vehicle fleet and miles of 12-15k per year, 8 to 8.5 years, 96,000- 128,000 miles.
GM (as do the other domestics) already has a diesel engine for its pick ups.
And the dual phase hybrid - which is apparently a viable truck hybrid system - is ready to launch in the Silverado and Sierra next year.
Can't Toyota marketers see the gold mine they have waiting there in that market?
That’s assuming you want a Sienna
Ditto the diesel and hybrids are being kept under wraps likely for the same reason.
I hope that GM has big winners on it's hands with the dual phase hybrids.... hopefully they will make enough of them and price them competitively in order to make them more than oddities.
Since Honda will have a diesel Odyssey here in MY 2008 the Sienna hybrid is a necessity in the same time frame if it wants to keep pace / keep ahead of the Ody.
This will be a key struggle to see which technology the public wants to embrace. It will be very very interesting.
While the Jetta TDI and Prius and HCH are similar each appeals to a slightly different demographic. The Sienna and Ody and Caravan IMO all appeal to the same group. The options will be Gasser ( Caravan ), Hybrid ( Sienna ) or Diesel ( Ody ).
Where are all the hybrids? Where are the cost reductions in hybrid vehicles due to ecomomy of scale?
More manufacturers have announced diesels in future product plans than hybrids for North America. Diesels exceed 50% of passenger vehicle sales in Europe and yet hybrids have yet to achieve 5% of the market in any country on the planet. :surprise:
Aside from Toyota, there is very little enthusiasm for hybrids.
For example, look at the example of Nissan's attitude to hybrids with the Altima.
According to Ghosn, the introduction of a hybrid Altima in early 2007 is intended to help Nissan comply with fuel economy and emissions standards in states like California, not because he expects the hybrid model to make money or to fulfill any kind of corporate environmental goals. In fact, when the Altima first rolls out, it will be sold only in the eight states certified to meet California emissions requirements: California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and New Jersey. These states also are among the strongest markets for hybrid vehicles.
LOL! Will not even be sold in 48 states.
Meanwhile, Honda is backing away from hybrids and is developing diesels to comply with US emissions regulations.
The bloom is off the rose for Hybrids!
Caravan will offer diesel with bluetec. Expect to see it in 2008 some months after the redesign hits the market in late 2007.
Hybrids are still selling like mad with two to three times the availability as in the past. Gas prices are driving :surprise: buyers to more efficient vehicles. All the most efficient vehicles are doing well in sales. However certain buyers just don't want the Yaris, Fit, Cobalt, Civic, Corolla. Some want nicer vehicles with more room, more features and more power.
The TCH is going to be a huge hit.
HOV lane interest is a non factor in 95% of the country. Federal ( soon to expire ) and state tax breaks ( no expiration ) are an incentive but it's amazing how many interested buyers have no idea that these incentives exist. It's probably at least 50%.
I agree that Toyota is the only one really interested in hybrids, except GM's likely winner in the trucks, and Honda in it's smaller vehicles. It's because Toyota has such a large technological lead ( and stranglehold on suppliers ? )in the field. I think this is a key reason why Ford backed out in favor of flex fuels. OTOH GM just jumped headfirst into the fray with it's dual phase truck.
Nissan is always a trailer and is not much of a factor in any innovations except styling.
In two to three years all the forementioned will have a large fleet of diesels available here if they can make them clean enough.
Don't forget BMW and Daimler plan to use a version of the dual phase in the large and pricey luxury automobiles as well.
When the Toyota/Lexus federal tax incentive expires on 10-1-2007, we will see how much the incentives mattered.
My guess is by then gas will be $3.50, and the "bloom" will continue on the Rose.....:)
As a consumer who does not work for any car company nor have any financial interest in any car company, I want what is best for the consumer. Desiring hybrids (or diesels or ICE or....) to fail does not serve my interest. Whatever forces the car companies to compete hard with eachother is what improves my options, AND makes the world a better place.
Maybe some guys just like to be right, more than they care if being right is good for them?
Taking the discussion back to hybrids and diesels, my personal objection is towards hybrid tax incentives. Don't remove tax dollars from the general fund to incentivize personal choice in a vehicle. Let hybrids (or any other type of vehicle) fail or succeed on their own merit.
That's not what the incentives are about AT ALL.
What they are about is promoting CLEAN, LOW-EMISSION vehicles. With the intent to promote clean air. And with the intent to reduce gasoline consumption, and thus reduce a major factor in Global Warming.
No one is against clean air, right?
You might want to review posts on unregulated REGULATED areas and even your own response and correction.
My point is that hybrids make for cleaner air versus the cars that COULD be driven in place of them. Even a SULEV high mpg Hybrid pollutes less than a PZEV gasser, when GHG is taken into consideration.
So GENERALLY speaking, a huge number of hybrids on the road means cleaner air for all of us. Thus the incentive.
taking a libertarian stance is fair, I'll give you that
still not sure why the "LOL" re the 48 state issue, but....
I support tax incentives. They just have to be the right ones. Maybe we'll be supporting tax incentives for certain diesels. Who knows. The free market will not supply the citizenry with clean air. That's a fact. So we have to come up with some ways to keep the air clean enough to breathe. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with tax incentives for hybrids, but the libertarian approach on this issue won't solve the problem